Mathematician to Refute Official Theory of WTC Destruction at Upcoming Conference

[Rigby5]

It has been survived many different skyscrapers, MANY times, including a B-24 that hit the Empire State building.

That was different, as the fire was brought under control in 40 minutes. And go ahead and link us to some of those "many" other times. 5 links will do, thanks.

That is not different at all.
A massive B-24 bomber has about the same speed, weight, energy, and fuel of a modern passenger plane.
They both travel about 250 mph.

And it does not matter.
The building codes clearly state all skyscrapers MUST easily be able to withstand a plane impact, because it is INEVITABLE!
There is absolutely no way any rational person could build a building that tall and expect it to not eventually get hit by a plane.
Since this already happened to the Empire State building, in 1945, they already were warned.
And they already claimed it was NO PROBLEM.

And as far as fires, many skyscrapers survived far worse.
Dubai Inferno: 5 of History's Worst Skyscraper Fires

What utter bullshit. You can't even get the type of plane right. It was a B-25, not a B-24. But more saliently, the two planes are not comparable. The commercial flights held almost 17,000 gallons of jet fuel and were fueled to capacity in preparation for cross country flights, the B-25 was coming in to land and had already burned most of its fuel. 767's have a wing span nearly 100 feet wider than a B-25 and 100 feet longer. They're big enough to carry more than 10 times the number of passengers and their top speeds are double that of a B-25. Even worse for your delusions is that B-25 was traveling at landing speed as it unintentionally flew into the Empire State Building; compared to the 2 767's on 9.11, which were flown at top speeds intentionally to inflict as much damage as possible -- even tilting upon impact to strike as many floors as possible.

You trufers are absolutely fucking nuts.

The point is that after the 1945 crash, all buildings were required to be able to withstand a plane impact.
There is no reason at all to suspect that would be at all difficult.
And the 767 would have been flying about the same speed.
You can not achieve high speed with a 767 in dense low altitude atmosphere.
And they would not have been trying for maximum speed because the most important thing would have been to hit the target.
And these were supposed to be student pilots who had only gone up once or twice.

And you have no reading comprehension at all.
I clearly states several times that I do not believe the WTC tower collapses were fake.
It is just that it is not hard to sympathize with those considering conspiracies because the building were NOT supposed to be able to collapse.

The single most significant reason why they did collapse was likely the damage to the sprinkler system.
Second was the thermal insulation on the beams was damaged or improperly applied in the first place.

 

[Rigby5]

You can't fly a Boeing 767 at 500 mph that low. It can only achieve those speed at very high altitudes.

Egad, another stupid lie you just made up on the spot.

Hey professor....all else being equal....what happens to a plane's speed, as it descends? Take your time.

Trying to fly at 500 mph in dense low altitude air will rip the wings off.
It has nothing to do with engine or gravity energy.
It is entirely due to air friction, which is much less at high altitude.

 

[MisterBeale]

This was the last person I ever voted for President.

Then you have, essentially, voted for the major candidate you preferred least in every presidential election since. VOTE

I don't think you listened to, read, or watched anything that came out since.

You ignore anything that doesn't conform to your world view.


What is the point?

 

[Rigby5]

No lowrise building, either.

The Pentagon survived

No skyscraper in history has ever survived such an impact

That is not true.
It has been survived many different skyscrapers, MANY times, including a B-24 that hit the Empire State building.
They could not build skyscrapers unless there was no way a plane NORMALLY should bring one down.
Even then, the building stayed up for hours, and if the sprinkler system had worked, there was no way it should have come down.

Seriously, you didn't just try to make that comparison? A fully fueled 767 with close to 17,000 gallons of jet fuel, flying at 4 to 5 hundred MPH ... with a much smaller aircraft, little fuel remaining, and flying at maybe 200 MPH.

You can't fly a Boeing 767 at 500 mph that low. It can only achieve those speed at very high altitudes.
And although a B-24 only has a 3,614 US gal fuel capacity, it would be high test gasoline instead of jp oil, so would burn much hotter and faster.
But I see the 767 has a 300,000 lb weight, compared to only 65,000 pounds of the B-24.
So the impact had almost 5 times the energy.

The B-25 had exhausted most of it's fuel while the 767's were fully fuelled.

Good point, but you were saying it was the impact and not the fuel.
I was the person saying it was the fuel, not the impact.

 

[Rigby5]

But obviously the collision impact did not bring either building down.

Right, the results of it did.

Wrong.
It was mostly the heat.
All the impact did was to damage the sprinkler system, and possibly the thermal insulation on the beams.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The B-25 had exhausted most of it's fuel while the 767's were fully fuelled.

Yep. 23,000 gallons of fuel, at 8 pounds per gallon, is 184,000 pounds of fuel.

A B-25 weighs 20,300 pounds.

So just the fuel in each plane weighed more than eight B-25s.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Wrong.
It was mostly the heat.

yes, the heat of the fire, a direct reault of the crashes.
Exacerbated by loss of flame retardant and structural integrity, both caused to some degree by the impacts.

So, like I said...the results.

 

[Faun]

It has been survived many different skyscrapers, MANY times, including a B-24 that hit the Empire State building.

That was different, as the fire was brought under control in 40 minutes. And go ahead and link us to some of those "many" other times. 5 links will do, thanks.

That is not different at all.
A massive B-24 bomber has about the same speed, weight, energy, and fuel of a modern passenger plane.
They both travel about 250 mph.

And it does not matter.
The building codes clearly state all skyscrapers MUST easily be able to withstand a plane impact, because it is INEVITABLE!
There is absolutely no way any rational person could build a building that tall and expect it to not eventually get hit by a plane.
Since this already happened to the Empire State building, in 1945, they already were warned.
And they already claimed it was NO PROBLEM.

And as far as fires, many skyscrapers survived far worse.
Dubai Inferno: 5 of History's Worst Skyscraper Fires

What utter bullshit. You can't even get the type of plane right. It was a B-25, not a B-24. But more saliently, the two planes are not comparable. The commercial flights held almost 17,000 gallons of jet fuel and were fueled to capacity in preparation for cross country flights, the B-25 was coming in to land and had already burned most of its fuel. 767's have a wing span nearly 100 feet wider than a B-25 and 100 feet longer. They're big enough to carry more than 10 times the number of passengers and their top speeds are double that of a B-25. Even worse for your delusions is that B-25 was traveling at landing speed as it unintentionally flew into the Empire State Building; compared to the 2 767's on 9.11, which were flown at top speeds intentionally to inflict as much damage as possible -- even tilting upon impact to strike as many floors as possible.

You trufers are absolutely fucking nuts.

The point is that after the 1945 crash, all buildings were required to be able to withstand a plane impact.
There is no reason at all to suspect that would be at all difficult.
And the 767 would have been flying about the same speed.
You can not achieve high speed with a 767 in dense low altitude atmosphere.
And they would not have been trying for maximum speed because the most important thing would have been to hit the target.
And these were supposed to be student pilots who had only gone up once or twice.

And you have no reading comprehension at all.
I clearly states several times that I do not believe the WTC tower collapses were fake.
It is just that it is not hard to sympathize with those considering conspiracies because the building were NOT supposed to be able to collapse.

The single most significant reason why they did collapse was likely the damage to the sprinkler system.
Second was the thermal insulation on the beams was damaged or improperly applied in the first place.

"The point is that after the 1945 crash, all buildings were required to be able to withstand a plane impact."

And the Twin Towers were, as you were shown, designed to withstand the impact of a 707. You lied when you falsely claimed they were designed to withstand the impact of a plane twice the size of a 707. You made that up out of whole cloth.

"And the 767 would have been flying about the same speed"

You're lying again. You should stop.

And again, the B-25 was coming in to land on the NJ side of the Hudson. It's landing speed would have been about 120-159 MPH.

Compared to the 767's which were flown at the maximum speeds possible, estimated at more than 500 MPH, to inflict the most damage.

And if you're really not a truther, I apologize for calling you one. But in my defense, it's hard to discern you're not one when you lie like one.

 

[Faun]

You can't fly a Boeing 767 at 500 mph that low. It can only achieve those speed at very high altitudes.

Egad, another stupid lie you just made up on the spot.

Hey professor....all else being equal....what happens to a plane's speed, as it descends? Take your time.

Trying to fly at 500 mph in dense low altitude air will rip the wings off.
It has nothing to do with engine or gravity energy.
It is entirely due to air friction, which is much less at high altitude.

And yet it didn't .

 

[Faun]

The Pentagon survived

No skyscraper in history has ever survived such an impact

That is not true.
It has been survived many different skyscrapers, MANY times, including a B-24 that hit the Empire State building.
They could not build skyscrapers unless there was no way a plane NORMALLY should bring one down.
Even then, the building stayed up for hours, and if the sprinkler system had worked, there was no way it should have come down.

Seriously, you didn't just try to make that comparison? A fully fueled 767 with close to 17,000 gallons of jet fuel, flying at 4 to 5 hundred MPH ... with a much smaller aircraft, little fuel remaining, and flying at maybe 200 MPH.

You can't fly a Boeing 767 at 500 mph that low. It can only achieve those speed at very high altitudes.
And although a B-24 only has a 3,614 US gal fuel capacity, it would be high test gasoline instead of jp oil, so would burn much hotter and faster.
But I see the 767 has a 300,000 lb weight, compared to only 65,000 pounds of the B-24.
So the impact had almost 5 times the energy.

The B-25 had exhausted most of it's fuel while the 767's were fully fuelled.

Good point, but you were saying it was the impact and not the fuel.
I was the person saying it was the fuel, not the impact.

It was both the impact and the fuel. The impact by the 767's was designed to produce maximum damage while carrying a lot of fuel; compared to a much smaller aircraft carrying minimal fuel, traveling considerably slower, and accidentally crashing into the Empire State building. Plus the 767's were chosen because they were larger than the 707 the Twin Towers were designed to withstand.

Comparing those crashes and questioning why the Twin Towers fell while the Empire State building didn't is beyond ludicrous.

 

[rightwinger]

No high rise building has ever survive a direct hit from a jet airline

No lowrise building, either.

The Pentagon survived

No skyscraper in history has ever survived such an impact

That is not true.
It has been survived many different skyscrapers, MANY times, including a B-24 that hit the Empire State building.
They could not build skyscrapers unless there was no way a plane NORMALLY should bring one down.
Even then, the building stayed up for hours, and if the sprinkler system had worked, there was no way it should have come down.

Seriously, you didn't just try to make that comparison? A fully fueled 767 with close to 17,000 gallons of jet fuel, flying at 4 to 5 hundred MPH ... with a much smaller aircraft, little fuel remaining, and flying at maybe 200 MPH.

You can't fly a Boeing 767 at 500 mph that low. It can only achieve those speed at very high altitudes.
And although a B-24 only has a 3,614 US gal fuel capacity, it would be high test gasoline instead of jp oil, so would burn much hotter and faster.
But I see the 767 has a 300,000 lb weight, compared to only 65,000 pounds of the B-24.
So the impact had almost 5 times the energy.

B-25 is much smaller than a B-24
It does not have anywhere near the kinetic force of a modern jetliner

 

[Rigby5]

The B-25 had exhausted most of it's fuel while the 767's were fully fuelled.

Yep. 23,000 gallons of fuel, at 8 pounds per gallon, is 184,000 pounds of fuel.

A B-25 weighs 20,300 pounds.

So just the fuel in each plane weighed more than eight B-25s.

No, the take off weight of a B-25, is more like 35,000 pounds, and none of the 767 fuel transferred any kinetic energy because as a liquid, it passed right through the building.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong.
It was mostly the heat.

yes, the heat of the fire, a direct reault of the crashes.
Exacerbated by loss of flame retardant and structural integrity, both caused to some degree by the impacts.

So, like I said...the results.

There is no evidence that the heat in either was due to either crash.
The fuel should have just sloshed right out the other sides, in a quick flash.
It should have had too much momentum for any significant portion of it to have remained inside the building.

It is not that it is impossible, but it is extreme coincidence that both towers lost their themo shielding, lost their sprinkler systems, and retained enough fuel to burn for so long.
Neither tower should have collapses, and every single architect has said it could not have happened from just a plane crash impact.

 

[Rigby5]

It has been survived many different skyscrapers, MANY times, including a B-24 that hit the Empire State building.

That was different, as the fire was brought under control in 40 minutes. And go ahead and link us to some of those "many" other times. 5 links will do, thanks.

That is not different at all.
A massive B-24 bomber has about the same speed, weight, energy, and fuel of a modern passenger plane.
They both travel about 250 mph.

And it does not matter.
The building codes clearly state all skyscrapers MUST easily be able to withstand a plane impact, because it is INEVITABLE!
There is absolutely no way any rational person could build a building that tall and expect it to not eventually get hit by a plane.
Since this already happened to the Empire State building, in 1945, they already were warned.
And they already claimed it was NO PROBLEM.

And as far as fires, many skyscrapers survived far worse.
Dubai Inferno: 5 of History's Worst Skyscraper Fires

What utter bullshit. You can't even get the type of plane right. It was a B-25, not a B-24. But more saliently, the two planes are not comparable. The commercial flights held almost 17,000 gallons of jet fuel and were fueled to capacity in preparation for cross country flights, the B-25 was coming in to land and had already burned most of its fuel. 767's have a wing span nearly 100 feet wider than a B-25 and 100 feet longer. They're big enough to carry more than 10 times the number of passengers and their top speeds are double that of a B-25. Even worse for your delusions is that B-25 was traveling at landing speed as it unintentionally flew into the Empire State Building; compared to the 2 767's on 9.11, which were flown at top speeds intentionally to inflict as much damage as possible -- even tilting upon impact to strike as many floors as possible.

You trufers are absolutely fucking nuts.

The point is that after the 1945 crash, all buildings were required to be able to withstand a plane impact.
There is no reason at all to suspect that would be at all difficult.
And the 767 would have been flying about the same speed.
You can not achieve high speed with a 767 in dense low altitude atmosphere.
And they would not have been trying for maximum speed because the most important thing would have been to hit the target.
And these were supposed to be student pilots who had only gone up once or twice.

And you have no reading comprehension at all.
I clearly states several times that I do not believe the WTC tower collapses were fake.
It is just that it is not hard to sympathize with those considering conspiracies because the building were NOT supposed to be able to collapse.

The single most significant reason why they did collapse was likely the damage to the sprinkler system.
Second was the thermal insulation on the beams was damaged or improperly applied in the first place.

"The point is that after the 1945 crash, all buildings were required to be able to withstand a plane impact."

And the Twin Towers were, as you were shown, designed to withstand the impact of a 707. You lied when you falsely claimed they were designed to withstand the impact of a plane twice the size of a 707. You made that up out of whole cloth.

"And the 767 would have been flying about the same speed"

You're lying again. You should stop.

And again, the B-25 was coming in to land on the NJ side of the Hudson. It's landing speed would have been about 120-159 MPH.

Compared to the 767's which were flown at the maximum speeds possible, estimated at more than 500 MPH, to inflict the most damage.

And if you're really not a truther, I apologize for calling you one. But in my defense, it's hard to discern you're not one when you lie like one.

Nope.
You are the one lying.
When there are 707s existing, the building requirements NEVER specify just a 707 impact, but they always plan for the future and worst case scenario, which by rule of thumb, is to just double it.

An experienced pilot might be able to make a 767 dive at speeds around 500 mph and not have the wings immediately tear off, and still hit the target, but not a beginner. A beginner would never be able to handle the turbulence of more than 300 mph at such low altitudes, and likely was going even slower than that, in order to be able to hit the target.

Your scenario is far more impossible than the average truther.
No one was able to figure out how the buildings could possibly come down at first.
It took months before they figured out a hypothesis.
And even then it is a guess.
For you to be so sure is just way wrong.

 

[Rigby5]

Here are pilots discussing that the speed calculations are impossible.

{...
NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room"

06/22/2010 - (PilotsFor911Truth.org) Recently Pilots For 9/11 Truth have analyzed the speeds reported for the aircraft utilized on 9/11. Numerous aviation experts have voiced their concerns regarding the extremely excessive speeds reported above Maximum Operating for the 757 and 767, particularly, United and American Airlines 757/767 Captains who have actual flight time in all 4 aircraft reportedly used on 9/11. These experts state the speeds are impossible to achieve near sea level in thick air if the aircraft were a standard 757/767 as reported. Combined with the fact the airplane which was reported to strike the south tower of the World Trade Center was also producing high G Loading while turning and pulling out from a dive, the whole issue becomes incomprehensible to fathom a standard 767 can perform such maneuvers at such intense speeds exceeding Maximum Operating limits of the aircraft. Especially for those who research the topic thoroughly and have expertise in aviation.

Co-Founder of Pilots For 9/11 Truth Rob Balsamo recently interviewed a former NASA Flight Director in charge of flight control systems at the NASA Dryden Flight Research facility who is also speaking out after viewing the latest presentation by Pilots For 9/11 Truth - "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Retired NASA Senior Executive Dwain Deets published his concerns on the matter at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) as follows:

A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability
Dwain Deets
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Senior Executive Service - retired)
AIAA Associate Fellow
The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won’t publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?

The above entry remained at the moderated AIAA Aerospace America Forum for approximately two weeks before being removed without explanation. Click "Who is Ethically Responsible" submitted by Dwain Deets at the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum for discussion on this entry at AIAA.

Dwain Deets credentials and experience are as follows:

Dwain Deets
MS Physics, MS Eng
Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)
Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
Associate Fellow - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000
Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
- Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
37 year NASA career
It is established based on corroborated expert statements, raw data, and precedent, that the extremely excessive speed reported for the 9/11 aircraft is truly the "Elephant In The Room" and needs to be thoroughly investigated.

For summary of speed analysis, please see article 9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed.

To view the scene from "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" analyzing the reported speeds in more detail, please click here.

For full detailed analysis covering the events which took place in New York City on September 11, 2001, interviews with experts, including analysis of "Hijacker" pilot skill, Black Box recovery and more... please view the latest presentation from Pilots For 9/11 Truth, "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has also analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack and the events in Shanksville, PA. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.
...}

 

[Faun]

No lowrise building, either.

The Pentagon survived

No skyscraper in history has ever survived such an impact

That is not true.
It has been survived many different skyscrapers, MANY times, including a B-24 that hit the Empire State building.
They could not build skyscrapers unless there was no way a plane NORMALLY should bring one down.
Even then, the building stayed up for hours, and if the sprinkler system had worked, there was no way it should have come down.

Seriously, you didn't just try to make that comparison? A fully fueled 767 with close to 17,000 gallons of jet fuel, flying at 4 to 5 hundred MPH ... with a much smaller aircraft, little fuel remaining, and flying at maybe 200 MPH.

You can't fly a Boeing 767 at 500 mph that low. It can only achieve those speed at very high altitudes.
And although a B-24 only has a 3,614 US gal fuel capacity, it would be high test gasoline instead of jp oil, so would burn much hotter and faster.
But I see the 767 has a 300,000 lb weight, compared to only 65,000 pounds of the B-24.
So the impact had almost 5 times the energy.

B-25 is much smaller than a B-24
It does not have anywhere near the kinetic force of a modern jetliner

A small prop plane with little fuel and low speed -- compared to a modern day large commercial jet with a shitload of jet fuel, flying at high speed and at an angle to maximize damage. Yeah, that's practically the same thing.

 

[Rigby5]

That is not true.
It has been survived many different skyscrapers, MANY times, including a B-24 that hit the Empire State building.
They could not build skyscrapers unless there was no way a plane NORMALLY should bring one down.
Even then, the building stayed up for hours, and if the sprinkler system had worked, there was no way it should have come down.

Seriously, you didn't just try to make that comparison? A fully fueled 767 with close to 17,000 gallons of jet fuel, flying at 4 to 5 hundred MPH ... with a much smaller aircraft, little fuel remaining, and flying at maybe 200 MPH.

You can't fly a Boeing 767 at 500 mph that low. It can only achieve those speed at very high altitudes.
And although a B-24 only has a 3,614 US gal fuel capacity, it would be high test gasoline instead of jp oil, so would burn much hotter and faster.
But I see the 767 has a 300,000 lb weight, compared to only 65,000 pounds of the B-24.
So the impact had almost 5 times the energy.

The B-25 had exhausted most of it's fuel while the 767's were fully fuelled.

Good point, but you were saying it was the impact and not the fuel.
I was the person saying it was the fuel, not the impact.

It was both the impact and the fuel. The impact by the 767's was designed to produce maximum damage while carrying a lot of fuel; compared to a much smaller aircraft carrying minimal fuel, traveling considerably slower, and accidentally crashing into the Empire State building. Plus the 767's were chosen because they were larger than the 707 the Twin Towers were designed to withstand.

Comparing those crashes and questioning why the Twin Towers fell while the Empire State building didn't is beyond ludicrous.

You have not understood.
The point of the Empire State crash is that the building codes after that required building to be able to take a crash, as they were inevitable.

And you keep saying the planes were put into a dive for max speed, for max damage, and that makes no sense.
The faster the plane goes, the more the fuel just spews out the other side, without causing any damage.
The more damage to the building, the slower you would want the plane to be flying.
It is the heat that caused the damage, not the impact.

 

[Rigby5]

No lowrise building, either.

The Pentagon survived

No skyscraper in history has ever survived such an impact

That is not true.
It has been survived many different skyscrapers, MANY times, including a B-24 that hit the Empire State building.
They could not build skyscrapers unless there was no way a plane NORMALLY should bring one down.
Even then, the building stayed up for hours, and if the sprinkler system had worked, there was no way it should have come down.

Seriously, you didn't just try to make that comparison? A fully fueled 767 with close to 17,000 gallons of jet fuel, flying at 4 to 5 hundred MPH ... with a much smaller aircraft, little fuel remaining, and flying at maybe 200 MPH.

You can't fly a Boeing 767 at 500 mph that low. It can only achieve those speed at very high altitudes.
And although a B-24 only has a 3,614 US gal fuel capacity, it would be high test gasoline instead of jp oil, so would burn much hotter and faster.
But I see the 767 has a 300,000 lb weight, compared to only 65,000 pounds of the B-24.
So the impact had almost 5 times the energy.

B-25 is much smaller than a B-24
It does not have anywhere near the kinetic force of a modern jetliner

So my memory was off by 1?
The point is everyone realized that all skyscrapers then were going to eventually get hit by a large plane, and the building codes required them to be ensured survival of the impact.

 

[Faun]

That was different, as the fire was brought under control in 40 minutes. And go ahead and link us to some of those "many" other times. 5 links will do, thanks.

That is not different at all.
A massive B-24 bomber has about the same speed, weight, energy, and fuel of a modern passenger plane.
They both travel about 250 mph.

And it does not matter.
The building codes clearly state all skyscrapers MUST easily be able to withstand a plane impact, because it is INEVITABLE!
There is absolutely no way any rational person could build a building that tall and expect it to not eventually get hit by a plane.
Since this already happened to the Empire State building, in 1945, they already were warned.
And they already claimed it was NO PROBLEM.

And as far as fires, many skyscrapers survived far worse.
Dubai Inferno: 5 of History's Worst Skyscraper Fires

What utter bullshit. You can't even get the type of plane right. It was a B-25, not a B-24. But more saliently, the two planes are not comparable. The commercial flights held almost 17,000 gallons of jet fuel and were fueled to capacity in preparation for cross country flights, the B-25 was coming in to land and had already burned most of its fuel. 767's have a wing span nearly 100 feet wider than a B-25 and 100 feet longer. They're big enough to carry more than 10 times the number of passengers and their top speeds are double that of a B-25. Even worse for your delusions is that B-25 was traveling at landing speed as it unintentionally flew into the Empire State Building; compared to the 2 767's on 9.11, which were flown at top speeds intentionally to inflict as much damage as possible -- even tilting upon impact to strike as many floors as possible.

You trufers are absolutely fucking nuts.

The point is that after the 1945 crash, all buildings were required to be able to withstand a plane impact.
There is no reason at all to suspect that would be at all difficult.
And the 767 would have been flying about the same speed.
You can not achieve high speed with a 767 in dense low altitude atmosphere.
And they would not have been trying for maximum speed because the most important thing would have been to hit the target.
And these were supposed to be student pilots who had only gone up once or twice.

And you have no reading comprehension at all.
I clearly states several times that I do not believe the WTC tower collapses were fake.
It is just that it is not hard to sympathize with those considering conspiracies because the building were NOT supposed to be able to collapse.

The single most significant reason why they did collapse was likely the damage to the sprinkler system.
Second was the thermal insulation on the beams was damaged or improperly applied in the first place.

"The point is that after the 1945 crash, all buildings were required to be able to withstand a plane impact."

And the Twin Towers were, as you were shown, designed to withstand the impact of a 707. You lied when you falsely claimed they were designed to withstand the impact of a plane twice the size of a 707. You made that up out of whole cloth.

"And the 767 would have been flying about the same speed"

You're lying again. You should stop.

And again, the B-25 was coming in to land on the NJ side of the Hudson. It's landing speed would have been about 120-159 MPH.

Compared to the 767's which were flown at the maximum speeds possible, estimated at more than 500 MPH, to inflict the most damage.

And if you're really not a truther, I apologize for calling you one. But in my defense, it's hard to discern you're not one when you lie like one.

Nope.
You are the one lying.
When there are 707s existing, the building requirements NEVER specify just a 707 impact, but they always plan for the future and worst case scenario, which by rule of thumb, is to just double it.

An experienced pilot might be able to make a 767 dive at speeds around 500 mph and not have the wings immediately tear off, and still hit the target, but not a beginner. A beginner would never be able to handle the turbulence of more than 300 mph at such low altitudes, and likely was going even slower than that, in order to be able to hit the target.

Your scenario is far more impossible than the average truther.
No one was able to figure out how the buildings could possibly come down at first.
It took months before they figured out a hypothesis.
And even then it is a guess.
For you to be so sure is just way wrong.

"Nope. You are the one lying. When there are 707s existing, the building requirements NEVER specify just a 707 impact, but they always plan for the future and worst case scenario, which by rule of thumb, is to just double it."

You lying piece of shit. I quoted an article earlier saying a Boeing 707 was the standard used to determine what those buildings could withstand. Here it is for the second time to show you're lying...

When the Twin Towers Fell

Newspapers and TV newscasts reported that the twin towers had been designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707.​

You claim it was double that ... prove it. Post a link proving they built those towers to withstand a plane twice the size of a Boeing 707.....

"An experienced pilot might be able to make a 767 dive at speeds around 500 mph and not have the wings immediately tear off, and still hit the target, but not a beginner."

And yet, they did. We know how fast they were going because the time it took to travel the short distance they were visible was measurable.

All you have are lies.

 

[Faun]

Here are pilots discussing that the speed calculations are impossible.

{...
NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room"

06/22/2010 - (PilotsFor911Truth.org) Recently Pilots For 9/11 Truth have analyzed the speeds reported for the aircraft utilized on 9/11. Numerous aviation experts have voiced their concerns regarding the extremely excessive speeds reported above Maximum Operating for the 757 and 767, particularly, United and American Airlines 757/767 Captains who have actual flight time in all 4 aircraft reportedly used on 9/11. These experts state the speeds are impossible to achieve near sea level in thick air if the aircraft were a standard 757/767 as reported. Combined with the fact the airplane which was reported to strike the south tower of the World Trade Center was also producing high G Loading while turning and pulling out from a dive, the whole issue becomes incomprehensible to fathom a standard 767 can perform such maneuvers at such intense speeds exceeding Maximum Operating limits of the aircraft. Especially for those who research the topic thoroughly and have expertise in aviation.

Co-Founder of Pilots For 9/11 Truth Rob Balsamo recently interviewed a former NASA Flight Director in charge of flight control systems at the NASA Dryden Flight Research facility who is also speaking out after viewing the latest presentation by Pilots For 9/11 Truth - "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Retired NASA Senior Executive Dwain Deets published his concerns on the matter at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) as follows:

A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability
Dwain Deets
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Senior Executive Service - retired)
AIAA Associate Fellow
The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won’t publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?

The above entry remained at the moderated AIAA Aerospace America Forum for approximately two weeks before being removed without explanation. Click "Who is Ethically Responsible" submitted by Dwain Deets at the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum for discussion on this entry at AIAA.

Dwain Deets credentials and experience are as follows:

Dwain Deets
MS Physics, MS Eng
Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)
Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
Associate Fellow - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000
Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
- Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
37 year NASA career
It is established based on corroborated expert statements, raw data, and precedent, that the extremely excessive speed reported for the 9/11 aircraft is truly the "Elephant In The Room" and needs to be thoroughly investigated.

For summary of speed analysis, please see article 9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed.

To view the scene from "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" analyzing the reported speeds in more detail, please click here.

For full detailed analysis covering the events which took place in New York City on September 11, 2001, interviews with experts, including analysis of "Hijacker" pilot skill, Black Box recovery and more... please view the latest presentation from Pilots For 9/11 Truth, "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has also analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack and the events in Shanksville, PA. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.
...}

LOLOL

You deny being a truther but you lie like one, you take up the positions of one, and here you are quoting conspiracy sites like one.